C_C said:
If the have the proper tools and attitude, then yes they do- which most dont.
Performance is not a criteria for potential because those two are fundamentally different things and inversely related- more the performance, less the 'potential' factor.
DUH!
no its not, how many times do i have to say it though, performance is the criteria for potential to 'greatness'. you simply cannot claim that any bowler can be an all time great based on absolutely nothing.
C_C said:
He has the height of Kapil, Pollock and is barely an inch or two shorter than Hadlee.
And if YOU watch more cricket, you will realise that your assertion is ridiculous.
In his debut match in OZ, Pathan's fastest was 83-ish mph with average of 81mph.
During PAK series he averaged 84ish with top delivery in the 87-88mph range.
During first test against AUS, he averaged 85-86mph and his fastest delivery was 144.8kph which is just a shade under 90mph.
During the bangladesh series his average speed in the first test was 85mph with top speed of 88mph...2nd test he was 84mph average and 87mph highest....
You are obviously commenting based on the last test with PAK where he struggled to reach 80mph, owing to injury ( he was injured right before the series and hasnt bowled competitively for a whole).
well done with the watching then.....pathan and 85 mph, you really are a joker.
and please, pollock in his prime was bowling in the mid- high 80s, which was when he was effective on any wicket, now hes just restricted to bowling well on seamer friendly wickets,because hes too slow. and thats despite the fact that he has 10 times the accuracy of pathan. dev to was much much faster for most of his career.
So get your facts straight.
C_C said:
Much better average ?
Pathan minus BD is 42-ish( i forget-its up in this thread). White is 37+...oh yes thats much better.sheesh.
More matchwinning performances ? debatable but well duh... onehas 3x the experience than other...who do you think has more matchwinning performances ? conversely, White has more pathetic displays than Pathan as well..
you really cant read can you?
we were talking about simon jones, not craig white, because you claimed that pathan could get into the current england side. and please ahole 5 runs less than pathan, makes him easily better, and thats despite the fact that he was bowling with injury for most of it.
C_C said:
Really ? who ? Fraser,Caddick,Gough and sporadically Headley apart, the 3rd/4th spot was usually a bastion of the bowlers i named above. And through the 90s, ENG played more tests without Fraser-Caddick-Gough than other way around...that automatically opens up one place for consideration with or without spinner.
And i made a passing observation. If you think it doesnt prove anything, why the feck are you arguing ?
im arguing at the foolishness of your claims really.
you still arent smart enough to realise that the 4th spot was competed between the spin bowlers, not between the pacers. because at any point in the 90s england had pace bowlers with far better averages than the spin bowlers, but because they needed the variety especially on pitches that looked like they were going to be turners, they picked a 4th spinner. pathan wouldnt have replaced a spinner, in the same way that bowlers like dominic cork, headley etc didnt, even though they had better averages.
C_C said:
Yes Injury played a crucial part but even when playing, white was mostly off color and ordinary.
because you've watched so much of his career havent you? so off colour was he that he was instrumental in the victory in pakistan.
C_C said:
I said almost every bowler- Saqlain is a distinct oddity as in he has degressed over the few years but even then, Saqlain was a MUCH better bowler a couple of seasons INTO international cricket than at the time of his debut.. But yes, Sami has added new balls to his delivery since he made debut- during his debut he could barely move the ball and had no inswinger to speak of....now he still bowls shyte but he has an inswinger and an outswinger.
you clearly have no clue what you are talking about do you? sami has been stagnant throughout his career, which is why hes never looked like taking wickets. and saqlain, really only a fool would say that hes got worse. rather he stayed stagnant throughout his career, except that people now know where his doosra is coming from, and have gotten more adept at playing him, while his skills have stayed the same. its a simple theory really, the ones that improve go on to become very good bowlers usually, while the ones that dont remain distinctly average and usually get dropped.
C_C said:
I've said WHY i consider Pathan to be better- since you dont have a clue about the concept of POTENTIAL, its like trying to make a donkey understand calculus- pointless and futile.
And yes, Pathan has better inswinger, yorker and bouncer than White. Particularly the inswinger(to the righties) and yorker.
you fool, anyone can say that someone has potential, its quite ludicrous. i could say that sami has potential too, even though hes absolute garbage. you have no facts at all, face it, performance is the only thing that gives you FACTS. until you have that dont go on blabbering about all the FACTS you have because you have none. and if you say that he has a better yorker, in swinger and bouncer than craig white, then you've got absolutely everything wrong about pathan. pathan couldnt trouble the worst of batsmen with his bouncer. and have you ever even seen a craig white in swinger or a yorker? probably not givent that you've never even watched him bowl.
C_C said:
As far as i see, you have some nerve disputing the opinions of Imran,Waqar,Wasim,Kapil and Reid to Pathan's POTENTIAL...
wow a few people said that pathan has potential....brilliant. did they all say that he has the potential to become an all time great too?
please people can say whatever they want, the number of people who jumped the gun about anderson becoming an all time great and harmison really were innumerable. and thats despite the fact that those guys actually performed something!
C_C said:
changing the tune are we ?
i said that almot every bowler improves since debut empirically while relatively they may be going backwards/forwards/staying stagnant...
But almost every bowler is empirically better since debut than previous.
then you are a fool if you think improving marginally makes a bowler any more effective than he used to be. my point is that pathan needs SIGNIFICANT improvements not minor ones, which has been my point alll along. if he improves marginally hes going to go the same way that several other bowlers have gone before- down the drain.
C_C said:
?
You make no sense there...yes they are proven great players and some of them are excellent at identifying talent- and you are contradicting what they are saying.
And yes, Reid was a potential great but that has nothing to do with what he did/didnt accomplish at the international level- achievements do not define the posession of potential. All it means is whether you have fulfilled or wasted or exceeded your potential.
and as ive said 1 million times you can only consider someone to be a potential all time great, if and only if they've actually done something. your claims such as pathan will replace anybody in the england side 5 years from now is simply stupid given what pathan has accomplished in his career so far.
C_C said:
Au contraire. You are the one clueless here, since you dont even know the definition of potential. To be considered a potential great, you need to posess the tools that other greats did at same time or tools you need to be great. Pathan clearly has that. Pathan has excellent control for his level of experience and age- control is something you get with dollops of practice and like i said- check his figures- OZ apart, he has less than 3rpo against almost every opposition in tests... especially in this era when most bowlers get clobbered for over 3rpo. And yes..Pathan has a gem of a bouncer- he shook up inzy in PAK and the delivery he bowled to get Razzaq in PAK was a topclass bouncer..
rubbish he barely even caused any problems to inzy with that bouncer, and then got hammered by him. you really need to understand the difference between potential to be a good bowler and potential to being an all time great. for him to jump the line ahead of bowlers whove actually done something like kaspa, gillespie, flintoff, vaas etc and be said to be potentiall all time great is ludicrous.
C_C said:
by and large, ER is the biggest indicator to accuracy. Ofcourse, to an extent it depends on the aggressiveness of the batting team.
And Zaheer on the whole DID NOT bowl as accurately as Pathan did...his first spell was very accurate but his second and third spell were codswallop in terms of accuracy.
you really dont watch any cricket do you? pathan was largely rubbish throughout the test match, he never really looked remotely close to threatening any batsman.
C_C said:
reverse ?
craig white ?
That is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. I am yet to see an english bowler get controlled and consistent reverse swing apart from Gough-that too he does sporadically.
And White could swing it but he swung it less but Pathan has a much better inswinger than White.
I REST MY CASE. you've obviously not watched craig white bowl, ever. to say that craig white couldnt swing the ball would be like saying that mcgrath isnt accurate.
read some of the reports from his performances in the sub continent in 2000....
"White, the Yorkshireman, effectively and deceptively changed his pace. He also succeeded in making the ball reverse swing because he bowled faster than most of the pacers. The most impressive thing about White was that he made the batsmen play rather than wasting his energy in wayward deliveries."
watch the deliveries that got razzaq out in both the 1st and 2nd test of the series in pakistan which were both fine reverse swinging deliveries. watch the entire spell after lunch on the last day of the final test which was instrumental in destroying pakistan and was perhaps the best craig white has ever bowled.
to say that white could only bowl outswing, when he was by and large an inswing bowler who bowled from wide of the crease makes you look even more foolish, especially for someone who thinks he knows more about cricket post 92 than me. watch any of the games against the WI in 2000, and tell me he couldnt bowl inswing please.
he couldnt bowl a yorker, of course, which explains why he bowled what is widely renowned as the ball of the summer when he knocked brian laras leg stump out of the ground first ball at the oval?
whats your next claim now? white was a largely medium pace?
C_C said:
He has some tools that most great pacers have/had. Ofcourse he isnt a finished product yet....but you like i said a few times before, know diddly squat about bowling if you equate inswing,bouncer,control and yorker to 'everything'.
so what else does he need? he can swing the ball both ways, he has the bouncer, he has the control and the yorker, he has the intelligence. youd think that hed at least be causing a few problems and averaging below 40 if he had all of that. ive seen bowlers whove had half of that and still been more successful.